Future Search 2020 COLLEGE OF BUSINESS - Strategic Plan 2015 2020 - Clayton State University
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Final: Approved by Faculty April 2015
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS
Future Search 2020
Strategic Plan 2015 – 2020
Page 1 of 13
Final: Approved by Faculty April 2015
The College of Business, under the leadership of our new Dean, Avi Mukherjee, presents our
new strategic plan, called Future Search 2020. Based on 18 months of analysis that preceded
the Dean’s arrival, the plan looks to the year 2020 and seeks to position the College for
continued success in what is expected to be a period of dramatic change in higher education.
The plan was approved by the faculty and endorsed by the University administration in April
2015.
The Strategic Planning Process
We developed our plan by following a structured process illustrated by the model in Figure 1.
A steering committee, representative of the faculty and staff, guided the work and engaged
representatives of three key stakeholder groups: University administration and staff, students
and alumni, and our employer advisory board. The process was iterative and interactive, with
the entire faculty involved in updates and discussion at every stage.
Figure 1. Strategic Planning Process Model
Vision External
Mission Analysis Strategy Tactics
Values Internal Scorecard
Vision, Mission, and Values
We began with a review of our vision, mission, and values. The University had recently
completed a new strategic plan, and we sought to make sure our vision, mission, and values
were in line with the University’s direction and areas of emphasis.
Our long term vision is to be recognized throughout the Southeast for the high quality of our
innovative programs, our diverse and engaged student population, and our willingness to meet
the needs of our business community.
Page 2 of 13Final: Approved by Faculty April 2015
Our mission can be summarized with four key words that describe the work we do and guide
our decision making: Prepare, Provide, Support, and Serve. The key words are amplified in the
following statements:
Prepare a diverse student body for business and professional careers by providing a high
quality and innovative education.
Provide a student-centered environment enriched by the use of technology, experience-
based learning, and active community service to enhance student learning.
Support faculty in applied and instructional research and service to the profession.
Serve primarily the metropolitan Atlanta area while staying connected to the global
community.
Our values provide a framework for behavior. They represent our shared cultural beliefs and
help us to make decisions, solve problems, and take actions that are consistent with our vision
and mission. Table 2 provides a list of the commitments made by the faculty and staff of the
College of Business.
Table 2. College of Business Values
Key Word Value Statement
Integrity We act with integrity and promote ethical behavior. We take
responsibility for our attitudes, actions, and results.
Collegiality We treat each other with respect and work together in a spirit of
teamwork to serve others.
Diversity We are inclusive, appreciating diversity in a broad sense, beyond
race and gender.
Engagement We are doers. We maintain active engagement with our students,
our community, and our profession.
Excellence We always give our best effort and seek continuous improvement
in all our activities.
External and Internal Analysis
As a prelude to determining our strategic positioning and basis for differentiation, we
conducted an extensive external and internal analysis. In context of our mission, we wanted to
understand the trends in the external environment that present opportunities as well as
threats. In addition, we sought to better understand our internal strengths and weaknesses.
Externally, we explored in depth the long-term trends in seven environmental factors:
Demographic, socio-cultural, technological, economic, political, global, and competitive forces.
Page 3 of 13Final: Approved by Faculty April 2015
Internally, we created a value chain model to help us breakdown and analyze the strengths and
weaknesses of our activities and processes. The documentation of that work is available in a
separate binder. Table 3 presents the resulting SWOT analysis.
Table 3. SWOT Analysis Summary
Strengths Weaknesses
Largest AACSB accredited business school in “Clayton” brand / misperceptions
south metro Atlanta Student recruitment: absence of
Accessible and student oriented faculty intentionality in targeting specific groups,
o 95% of credit hours taught by AACSB e.g., non-traditional students
qualified faculty Student orientation processes
o Extensive industry experience Inadequate external funding / resources
o Strong collegiality / culture Limited class offerings day and evening
Professional academic and career advisors Use of internships / service projects
Higher proportion of non-traditional students Faculty research (applied)
Practical Curriculum Faculty involvement in the community
o Day and evening schedule Student job placement (lack of data)
o Ease of minors Brand development process
o Supply chain niche External relations / community engagement
o MBA program o Alumni
Smaller class sizes o Corporate recruiters
Strong assessment processes o Employers
Active student clubs o Community, e.g. local high schools
Small Business Development Center o Chambers of Commerce
Location / beautiful campus
International student body in MBA program
Opportunities Threats
Positive economic / population growth in Increasing competition in market area
market area o 2-year schools evolving to 4-year
Airport industrial development (Aerotropolis, o For-profit universities
Porsche) o Satellite campuses – USG schools
Ft. Gillem logistics center development o Private universities
Film and entertainment industry Resource issues
development o Decline in state funding
Fayette Center in Peachtree City o Reductions in financial aid programs
International partnerships (e.g., Hope, Pell)
Collaboration with other CSU departments USG system consolidation (e.g., GSU/GPC)
and colleges
Institutional Expectations
We do not operate in a vacuum. Our strategic direction and activities must be congruent with
expectations set by the University System of Georgia, Clayton State University, and
Page 4 of 13Final: Approved by Faculty April 2015
accreditation agencies such as SACS and AACSB. Table 5 provides a summary of key
institutional expectations by entity that influenced our priorities and tactical plans.
Table 4. Institutional Expectations
Institution Expectations
University System of Georgia Complete College Georgia Initiative
Improve retention rates
Improve graduation rates
Support for transfer students
Clayton State University Strategic Plan Priorities
Community engagement
Experiential learning
Internships (EDGE)
Carnegie Engaged Campus Classification
SAC’s (QEP Initiative) PACE (Partnering Academics and Community)
Student engagement in community
projects
AACSB New Standards
Emphasis on engagement, innovation and
impact
New Standards of Public Accountability
Another factor in the strategic planning process includes public and political concern about the
rising costs of higher education and the difficulty of finding quality jobs for the graduates who
are burdened with large student loan debts. In the future, as part of new standards of public
accountability, universities and colleges will be expected to answer questions such as:
Is the college affordable?
What do students need to learn?
Are the students learning?
What is the graduation rate?
How long does it take to graduate?
What is the average student debt?
How many get good jobs?
What is the average student’s return on investment?
Are the students making a difference in the workplace and society?
As part of our strategic efforts, we have to make sure we can answer these questions in a
positive way.
Page 5 of 13Final: Approved by Faculty April 2015
Strategy: Our Strategic Position
Given our mission, the external and internal analysis, institutional expectations, and the
expected new standards of public accountability, we see the appropriate strategy for the
College of Business, to be “focused differentiation.”1
In regard to focus, Clayton Christensen, in his book The Innovative University, suggests that
every school needs to address four questions:2
1. Which students will we serve?
2. What subject matter will we emphasize?
3. What type of scholarship will we pursue?
4. How will we deliver our instruction?
The following discussion highlights our understanding and intentions in regard to these four
focus questions.
Students. Our University tag line “Dreams Made Real” provides an insight into our student
population. Our students are “aspirational” in nature. We serve a unique and diverse group of
students, mostly minority, many non-traditional, first generation college students seeking to
better their lives through education. Most are working while they go to school. Some didn’t do
well the first time in college and are back to make it right. Some are lacking fundamentals in
math and writing. Table 5 provides a profile of the typical CSU College of Business student
based on data collected from last semester seniors in our capstone undergraduate strategy
course during spring and fall for the calendar year 2014 (N = 116).
Table 5. Profile of the CSU Undergraduate College of Business Student 2014
Item Composite
Minority 78%
Female 57%
Average Age 30
Non-Traditional 59%
Transfer 57%
Working 75%
Average Work Hours / Week 32
Average SAT (Verbal + Math) 955
1
Porter, M. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. The Free Press: NY.
2
Christensen, C., & Eyring, H. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the
inside out. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Page 6 of 13Final: Approved by Faculty April 2015
While our MBA students are certainly at a higher academic level, they display a similar profile –
working-class, first and second level managers aspiring to move up.
As a public university, drawing our student population primarily from eight southern Atlanta
metropolitan counties with significant minority populations, this is who we serve. We will focus
on meeting their needs for personal contact and support, while continuously seeking to
improve learning, retention, and graduation rates. We will strive to communicate positive
expectations, open eyes to possibilities, and provide a consistent message that each student is
being equipped with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to gain a competitive edge in the
marketplace and make a difference in their community.
Subjects. Given our student needs and limited system resources, we will continue to offer a
focused set of academic offerings, teaching the undergraduate business basics in accounting,
marketing, management, supply chain, and general business. We want to make it easy to have
a major and a minor and are open to developing new majors and programs where there’s
market demand in Georgia, such as film and entertainment management and
entrepreneurship.
Our MBA concentrations are also focused on business needs in our marketing area: Supply
chain, accounting, international studies, human resource leadership, and sports and
entertainment management.
Scholarship: Our scholarship activities will be focused primarily on applied research, though
efforts in instructional (scholarship of teaching and learning) and theoretical or discovery
research are certainly welcomed.
Delivery: While we will use all modalities of delivery – traditional classroom, hybrid, and online
– to meet market demands, our primary focus will be developing a unique hybrid approach
we’re tentatively calling “T3,” which stands for “High Tech, High Touch, and High Task.” High
Tech refers to the integrated use of a variety of technologies to deliver basic knowledge and
content outside the classroom. High Touch refers to in-class “hands on” application activities to
build critical thinking skills and integrate the knowledge. High Task refers to projects (both
individual and collaborative), simulations, and outside-the-classroom activities, such as
internships and course-related local business engagement projects that build practical
experience and tacit knowledge. Our tagline (Business. Made Real.) captures the thrust of our
delivery system – a system that will be developed and refined over the next five years.
Regarding the differentiation portion of our strategy, differentiation is created by performing
different activities compared to rivals, similar activities in different ways, and / or similar
Page 7 of 13Final: Approved by Faculty April 2015
activities better than rivals. Sustainable competitive advantage usually requires a unique blend
of all three approaches.
We believe we can gain and maintain a competitive edge in our market area by differentiating
our college based on a combination of seven elements:
1. Our superior value, providing a quality education at a lower
“Though online
cost compared to our large-school competition.
pedagogies continue to
2. Our qualified, accessible faculty, with a higher percentage of improve and are likely to
credit hours taught by full-time AACSB qualified faculty who produce cognitive learning
provide a relationship-based educational experience for our superior to those of the
traditional classroom
students using our unique “T3” delivery system.
lecture, the most lasting,
3. Our superior academic and career advisement. transformative learning is
4. Our focus on high-demand career programs such as supply personal, the result of an
chain-logistics, entrepreneurship, and film-entertainment intimate, lasting
connection with a great
management.
teacher.”
5. Our part-time MBA program for working professionals.
Clayton Christensen
6. Our Small Business Development Center (SBDC). The Innovative University
7. Our accessible, safe, and beautiful campus.
Strategic Priorities
We have identified six strategic priorities to operationalize our strategy and set the stage for a
series of actions for continuous improvement and innovation. The priorities include:
1. Pursue innovation in academic curricula and program development
2. Pursue innovation in teaching styles, methods of delivery, and research
3. Conduct more aggressive student recruitment and enrollment management
4. Increase external funding through stakeholder relationships and community engagement
5. Build brand with more external communication
6. Develop more international connections
Tactical Projects
Our game plan is to focus our resources by implementing carefully selected action projects for
each strategic priority, a series of projects for each year, taking us to the year 2020. Table 6
shows the projects selected for year 2015. Each project has a leader and every member of the
full-time faculty is an active member of at least one project team. Each project has a work plan
identifying action steps, responsibilities, target dates, and resources required. Status reports by
project leaders are provided during our monthly faculty meetings on a scheduled basis.
Page 8 of 13Final: Approved by Faculty April 2015
Table 6. Strategic Projects 2015
Strategic Priority / Major Projects Project Leader
1. Pursue Innovation in Academic Curricula and Program Development
a. Minor and Concentration in Entrepreneurship / Develop Center for Entrepreneurship Lou Jourdan
b. Minor in Business Economics Reza Kheirandish
c. MBA Concentrations: Human Resource Leadership and Sports / Entertainment Mgmt Ali Dadpay
d. Major in Film and Entertainment Management Avi Mukherjee
e. Fully online BBA for Supply Chain major Craig Hill
f. Certificate in Accounting for post-bac students with degree in other fields Adel Novin
2. Pursue Innovation in Teaching Styles, Methods of Delivery, and Research
a. Graduate Assistants Program to support faculty in research Ali Dadpay
b. Programs to enhance research culture George Nakos
c. Faculty Development 2020: "High Tech, High Touch, High Task" M. Thompson
d. Revision of Faculty Annual Performance Rating Form to align with AACSB standards Craig Hill
3. Conduct More Aggressive Student Recruitment and Enrollment Management
a. Focus on Pre-business students - increase designations and conversion rate to major Michael Deis
b. Introduction to Business course, accessible to freshmen pre-business Gay Solomon
c. Outreach programs for community colleges and local high schools Sherwin James
4. Increase Funding though Stakeholder Relationships and Community Engagement
a. Internship Program / Disney Program Sanford Dennis
b. Programs for community engagement, e.g., PACE, SEBA, VITA, EDGE, Competitions Lou Jourdan
c. Expand Advisory Board Avi Mukherjee
d. Increase grant writing initiatives Reza Kheirandish
5. Build Brand with More External Communication
a. Comprehensive Communication Program (Web site, social media, newsletter) George Bourelle
6. Develop International Connections
a. Business club for international students Michelle Terrell
b. Faculty and Student Exchange Program Avi Mukherjee
c. Explore 2+2 partnerships with foreign universities Avi Mukherjee
Page 9 of 13Final: Approved by Faculty April 2015
Future Projects
Following are some examples of projects under consideration for future years as resources
become available:
New program development and partnerships with other CSU colleges. Examples include
o Industrial psychology major with Arts and Sciences
o Sustainability and environmental management major with Arts and Sciences;
o Business analytics major with Information and Mathematical Sciences
o Online MBA with Masters of Science program in Nursing;
Full BBA delivery in Peachtree City (management major with concentration in film and
entertainment management)
In coordination with University Career Services, provide additional emphasis and resources
devoted to career and job placement services specific to the College of Business.
In coordination with Recruitment and Admissions, conduct more targeted recruitment of
selected student populations for the College of Business (e.g., Latinos).
In coordination with our Small Business Development Center and our Center for
Entrepreneurship, develop internship programs and branded services for community
businesses in our marketing area (e.g., “Laker Solutions” consulting services).
Measuring Success and Impact
To measure our success and provide a feedback loop for monitoring our progress, we intend to
create a new management information system comprised of three parts:
1. “Dashboard” Measures: Critical measures of overall success that link to University and
Board of Regents areas of concern and emphasis.
2. Strategic Priorities: Measures related to overall progress on strategic priorities as we
implement a variety of tactical initiatives and projects for each priority.
3. Impact Narratives: A combination of statistics and qualitative narratives to document the
attainment of AACSB’s new standards for mission, innovation, and impact.
Tables 7 - 9 provide a summary of planned measures by each category. To manage the process
of data collection, various faculty and staff have volunteered to become “data mavens” for one
or more of the measures. Other members of the faculty will be engaged in developing and
maintaining an electronic data base in conjunction with Digital Measures to capture all the
information and generate timely and action-oriented reports.
Page 10 of 13Final: Approved by Faculty April 2015
Table 7: Dashboard: Critical Measures of Success
Total enrollment (number and % change prior year)
Total credit hours taught (number and % change prior year)
Graduates (number and % change prior year)
BBA graduation rate (% within 5 years of admission to College of Business by FTF and non-traditional )
MBA graduation rate (% within 3 years of admission to MBA program)
BBA market share (% to total business degrees conferred by University System of Georgia)
MBA market share (% to total MBA degrees conferred by University System of Georgia)
BBA employment (% of graduates holding a job requiring a college degree within 6 months of graduation)
MBA employment (% of graduates advancing in career position or salary within 1 year of graduation)
ROI of Degree (Cost of Education to Earnings) (see http://www.payscale.com/college-education-value-2013)
Maintenance of AACSB Accreditation (5 year reviews: Feb. 2016; Feb 2021)
Table 8: Measures Related to Outcomes of Strategic Priorities and Initiatives
Innovation in Academic Curricula and Program Development
Enrollment by program (number and % change prior year from date of new program implementation)
Innovation in Teaching Styles, Methods of Delivery, and Research
BBA ETS exit exam (% students scoring above national mean on the ETS Major Field Test in Business)
BBA Comp-XM exit exam (% students scoring above national mean on the Comp-XM Competency Exam)
BBA Major Specific exit exam (% students scoring above 70% by major)
MBA Comp-XM exit exam (% students who score above national mean on the Comp-XM Competency Exam)
BBA student satisfaction (% students answering 5 or better on 7 point scale on “recommend to friend”)
BBA student satisfaction (% students answering 5 or better on 7 point scale on “value of investment”)
MBA student satisfaction (% students answering 5 or better on 7 point scale on “recommend to friend”)
MBA student satisfaction (% students answering 5 or better on 7 point scale on “value of investment”)
Qualified Faculty (% of faculty AACSB qualified SP, SA, IP, or PA)
Participating Faculty (% of scheduled credit hours taught by qualified faculty)
Publications (number of refereed journal articles / books accepted for publication by type and total)
(continue on next page)
Page 11 of 13Final: Approved by Faculty April 2015
Table 8: Measures Related to Outcomes of Strategic Priorities and Initiatives (con’t)
More Aggressive Student Recruitment and Enrollment Management
(Captured in Dashboard measures)
Increase Funding through Stakeholder Relationships and Community Engagement
Incremental funds (other revenue contributed to CSU as a % of CoB’s allocated budget)
Build Brand with More External Communication
Media exposure (number of news articles in media about College of Business)
Web site effectiveness (number of “hits” by page)
Alumni giving (% of CoB alumni giving to all CSU alumni giving)
Develop International Connections
International students in BBA program (% of total CoB and University enrollment)
International students in MBA program (% of total CoB and University enrollment)
Number of faculty traveling internationally for teaching or research (% to total faculty)
Number of students participating in study abroad (% to enrollment)
Table 9: Categories of Impact Statistics and Narratives for AACSB
Practice / Community Impact (e.g. consulting projects)
Academic Impact (e.g., article citation counts / downloads)
Teaching / Instructional Impact (e.g., grants for research that influences teaching practice)
Bachelor’s / Master’s Level Education Impact (e.g., mentorship of student research)
Research Center Impact (e.g., centered sponsored events – number attendees / feedback data)
Mission Alignment (e.g., recognition / awards aligned with mission focus areas)
Page 12 of 13Final: Approved by Faculty April 2015
Acknowledgements
We want to thank members of our stakeholder groups who provided input and feedback on our
strategic plan. In addition, special kudos go to the College of Business faculty for their vigorous
engagement in the development of the plan.
THANK YOU!
Strategic Planning Committee Students and Alumni Panel (Award Winners)
Khamis Bilbeisi, Professor of Accounting Richard Ahanotu, Leadership and Service in General Business
George Bourelle, Academic Advisor Jeff Bowns, Nat. Defense Transportation Assoc. Scholarship
Ali Dadpay, MBA Director and Asst. Professor of Economics Kashaka Byrdsong, CoB Student Entrepreneur of the Year
Diane Fulton, Professor of Management Ka’Nyia Griffin, Leadership and Service in Marketing
Craig Hill, Professor of Management and Conklin Chair Christopher Jeboda, Leadership and Service in Management
Lou Jourdan, Assoc. Dean and Professor of Management Rachel Mannor, Beta Gamma Sigma Scholar
Gary May, Committee Chair, Professor of Management Ryan Marsh, Outstanding Graduate in Supply Chain
Avi Mukherjee, Dean and Professor of Marketing Hue Nguyen, Council of Supply Chain Scholarship
George Nakos, Professor of Marketing Patryce Pittman, Outstanding Graduate in Marketing
Michelle Terrell, MBA Program Manager Stephanie Rose, Outstanding Graduate in Accounting
UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION Advisory Council Panel
President’s / Provost’s Office Kevin Charles
Tim Hynes, President Chief of Staff, Global Consulting Innovation, Deloitte
Kevin Demmitt, Interim Provost and VP Academic Affairs
Alisa Kirk
External Relations Director, Small Business Development Center
Kate Troelstra, VP of External Relations
Tom Giffin, Director of Development David Huseth
Leila Tatum, Director of Alumni Relations Director of Supply Chain, Delta Air Lines
Cheryl Thibodeau, Director of Corporate & Foundation Relations
Lon Langston
Student Affairs Founder, Significance Ideation
Elaine Manglitz, VP Student Affairs
Angelyn Hayes, Asst. VP Student Affairs Leonard Moreland
Bridgette McDonald, Director Career Services President, Heritage Bank
Information and Technology Services Victoria Carver Sparks
Bill Gruszka, VP/CIO OITS Co-owner and President, PEI Logistics
Paul Bailey, Director Media Services
Shannon Thomas, Director HUB Kofi Conduah
President and CEO, Regal Software Technologies
Enrollment Management & Academic Success
Mark Daddona – Assoc. VP
Stephen Jenkins – Director of Recruitment & Admissions
Kathy Garrison – Director of Center for Academic Success
DeLandra Hunter – Director 1st Year Advising and Retention
Faculty and Program Development / Graduate School
Robert Vaughan, Assoc. VP / Dean of Graduate School
Elizabeth Taylor, Graduate Admissions
Center for Instructional Development
Jill Lane, Dean, Assessment and Instructional Development
Justin Mays, Director Distance Learning
Page 13 of 13You can also read
